David Jordan《神．鬼．祖先》一書與筆者《重訪保安村》一書，都是針對臺南西港保安村所進行的民族誌考察，二書觀察點間隔約四十年，形成重要的對照性文本。1960年代的臺灣農村社會，處在國民黨威權時代，農業是當時最主要的生產型態。和諧與整合，不論在現實或是象徵層次，都是社會權力正當性的基礎，也是其運作的主要模式。David Jordan以鬼神之間的互動和乩童居中調控，來作為理解漢人社會超自然與社會組織之間相互再生產的基礎，近乎於結構主義分析，但他又特別強調象徵系統的社會功能，整套解釋可以被稱之為「象徵功能論」。四十年來，保安村歷經劇烈變化，村民大眾共有的核心象徵概念也許並未改變，但相關概念所能發生的效果，在範圍與強度上都大大減弱了。還有，過去各類資本高度重疊與未分化的狀況也有所改變。不過另一方面，農村的象徵系統和相關實踐活動，在新的情境裡，相對於都市的各類活動，卻可能是象徵資本的相對稀少且關鍵性的來源。對比於Jordan的解釋框架，我嘗試用「象徵資本動員論」來解釋今日臺灣農村的民間信仰活動。研究方法上，本文是以保安村的行動者作為考察焦點，由地方菁英領導型態的變遷與轉化過程，呈現地方層次行動場域的轉變，以及結構與個人能動性之間的關係。

Anthropologist David Jordan studied Tainan’s Bao’an village, while the author of the present study reexamined the same village; the two works were separated by approximately forty years. In comparing these two studies, is it possible that historical circumstances drove the authors to employ different conceptual frameworks? Jordan uses a symbolic function viewpoint to emphasize the enduring balance between the symbolic and social worlds. Using data regarding changes in local authority, I try to show how this oligarchical system evolved in Bao’an. Agricultural production is no longer the main source of capital accumulation in the village, and the one party political system has changed. Now, people migrate to metropolitan areas to accumulate more wealth, and then return to the village to gain symbolic capital. Local autonomy has also been invaded by the new local administration. In sum, the symbolic system may not have changed greatly, yet the agents have new positions to play within the traditional symbolic system. As the traditional symbolic system now gains the features of “criticality” and “scarcity,” people may accumulate symbolic capital more easily by attending traditional religious activities. Thus, in this paper, I use a symbolic capital mobilization model to examine Bao’an in contemporary Taiwan and discuss theoretical implications for religious change in Taiwanese local villages.